The other day, someone was hurt and upset by my posts, and tweeted: you've decided to become unappointed uninformed arbiter & commentator to which I penned the riposte: Yes, it's called blogging... (Ho ho Ben, very witty, quote of the day award...)
Twitter brings out the worst in me, I think: the temptation to say the quick and witty thing without really pausing for reflection on its veracity or helpfulness. (Actually, that’s not the worst in me, but this isn’t the confessional and the rest is none of your business!)
But it did cause me to reflect: is that really what I am doing when I am blogging? And if so, is that something I should be doing? I have already reflected on my SAGO tendencies.
However, I do believe that discussing things in the open is frequently helpful. It is conceivable that the Catholic Blogs were in part responsible for the cancellation of the proposed ‘Methodist Ordinations’ in Liverpool Cathedral.
Certainly the fuss over Bonus Pastor alerted me to the problems with Keeping Mum, and enabled me to get it withdrawn from the RE syllabus at the kids’ school.
And in the present instance, even if I am wholly wrong (which is quite probable) in my analysis both of Catholic Voices and its critics, I still think it is helpful for all concerned to know what it looks like from my perspective (and not mine alone, judging by feedback both public and private which I have received.)
Tom Stoppard, in Night and Day, has a character defending the press say: ‘I’ve been around a lot of places. People do awful things to each other. But it’s worse in places where everybody is kept in the dark. It really is. Information is light.’
I think there is some truth in that: information about how others see things, even if that perception is flawed, partial, prejudicial, ill-informed or plain wrong, is helpful.
I apologise to anyone whom I have misrepresented, abused or hurt in anyway. And I shall continue to blog.